Calories in calories out

Rawfoodsho

has she checked her Thyroids?

I doubt she's got more than one..

that might be her problem

I've been accused of having more than one because of my >3000 average TDEE (and ~2700 even on non-exercise days) despite being "old". I strongly recommend it for effective weight management.

sign me up. If I was to eat 3000 calories a day I would be 300 pounds.

Capt_Apollo

The Thyroids might be a good name for a band

3dogsrunning

The Thyroids might be a good name for a band

If only I could sing.


Or play instrument.


Or was the least bit musical at all.

Hauntinglyfit

The Thyroids might be a good name for a band

The Overactive Thyroids.

Capt_Apollo

The Thyroids might be a good name for a band

The Overactive Thyroids.

lets do this. i used to get all five stars on Rock Band.

Rawfoodsho

http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/12/22/more-support-for-ditching-the-calories-in-calories-out-conce.html

The Study

Researchers looked at a group of individuals on a calorie restricted diet to determine how far off their calorie balance equations would be from the reality of those on a weight loss program. They found that individuals only achieved a weight loss of 2/3 what would have been expected from the equations. That means, if the equations suggested individuals would lose 15 pounds, they only lost 10. Yet, these equations are often spoken about as though they are a law as true as the law of gravity. What happened?

in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%. That’s a pretty significant drop. It’s much higher than would be expected based on having a slightly lower total body weight. In addition, the researchers pointed out that the thermic effect of food was lower. Protein, fat and carbohydrate each burn varying levels of calories in the process of digestion. More than 25% of the calories from protein get burned during breakdown and digestion. The values for carbohydrate and fat are significantly lower at less than 8% and 5% respectively. Reducing the total calorie level, while keeping protein low to moderate, results in a lower thermic effect. An easy way to avoid this drop is making protein a larger portion of the overall calorie intake, but few weight loss programs do this (even though it’s consistently shown to work in research).

When the body is able to tap into its fat stores, it has an almost unlimited supply of fuel. That’s why we talk so much about the idea of “making your body a better fat burner.”

New findings from a longitudinal study from Harvard that followed 120,877 healthy, non-obese, and well-educated adults for 12-20 years confirm is that it’s really not about the calories

^^

Oh look a study done on 120k people over 12 years....derp derp

Hauntinglyfit

The Thyroids might be a good name for a band

The Overactive Thyroids.

lets do this. i used to get all five stars on Rock Band.

I am great at lip-synching. We're gonna get rockstar rich!

Capt_Apollo

http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/12/22/more-support-for-ditching-the-calories-in-calories-out-conce.html

The Study

Researchers looked at a group of individuals on a calorie restricted diet to determine how far off their calorie balance equations would be from the reality of those on a weight loss program. They found that individuals only achieved a weight loss of 2/3 what would have been expected from the equations. That means, if the equations suggested individuals would lose 15 pounds, they only lost 10. Yet, these equations are often spoken about as though they are a law as true as the law of gravity. What happened?

in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%. That’s a pretty significant drop. It’s much higher than would be expected based on having a slightly lower total body weight. In addition, the researchers pointed out that the thermic effect of food was lower. Protein, fat and carbohydrate each burn varying levels of calories in the process of digestion. More than 25% of the calories from protein get burned during breakdown and digestion. The values for carbohydrate and fat are significantly lower at less than 8% and 5% respectively. Reducing the total calorie level, while keeping protein low to moderate, results in a lower thermic effect. An easy way to avoid this drop is making protein a larger portion of the overall calorie intake, but few weight loss programs do this (even though it’s consistently shown to work in research).

When the body is able to tap into its fat stores, it has an almost unlimited supply of fuel. That’s why we talk so much about the idea of “making your body a better fat burner.”

New findings from a longitudinal study from Harvard that followed 120,877 healthy, non-obese, and well-educated adults for 12-20 years confirm is that it’s really not about the calories

^^

Oh look a study done on 120k people over 12 years....derp derp

dude, no one cares any more. we're starting a band now.

jofjltncb6

http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/12/22/more-support-for-ditching-the-calories-in-calories-out-conce.html

The Study

Researchers looked at a group of individuals on a calorie restricted diet to determine how far off their calorie balance equations would be from the reality of those on a weight loss program. They found that individuals only achieved a weight loss of 2/3 what would have been expected from the equations. That means, if the equations suggested individuals would lose 15 pounds, they only lost 10. Yet, these equations are often spoken about as though they are a law as true as the law of gravity. What happened?

in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%. That’s a pretty significant drop. It’s much higher than would be expected based on having a slightly lower total body weight. In addition, the researchers pointed out that the thermic effect of food was lower. Protein, fat and carbohydrate each burn varying levels of calories in the process of digestion. More than 25% of the calories from protein get burned during breakdown and digestion. The values for carbohydrate and fat are significantly lower at less than 8% and 5% respectively. Reducing the total calorie level, while keeping protein low to moderate, results in a lower thermic effect. An easy way to avoid this drop is making protein a larger portion of the overall calorie intake, but few weight loss programs do this (even though it’s consistently shown to work in research).

When the body is able to tap into its fat stores, it has an almost unlimited supply of fuel. That’s why we talk so much about the idea of “making your body a better fat burner.”

New findings from a longitudinal study from Harvard that followed 120,877 healthy, non-obese, and well-educated adults for 12-20 years confirm is that it’s really not about the calories

^^

Oh look a study done on 120k people over 12 years....derp derp

dude, no one cares any more. we're starting a band now.

elyelyse

In for the math ... and science :flowerforyou:

You're in the wrong place. Nothing going on here but people letting themselves get trolled.

Or bored people.

Yes, bored people trying to avoid getting up for a snack! :laugh: Too bad I'm not one of those people who can eat 4000 calories a day and stay skinny.

You lost 110 pounds I dont think you stayed skinny

um....lolwhat?

I'll try to clarify, let me know if you still don't understand:
I am resisting getting up for a snack, because I am not one of those lucky folks who can eat as much as I want without gaining weight.

AllTehBeers

Why would anyone eat salads?

y u no like salad?

Hmm. I've been doing it wrong.

Clearly.

YesIAm17

http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/12/22/more-support-for-ditching-the-calories-in-calories-out-conce.html

The Study

Researchers looked at a group of individuals on a calorie restricted diet to determine how far off their calorie balance equations would be from the reality of those on a weight loss program. They found that individuals only achieved a weight loss of 2/3 what would have been expected from the equations. That means, if the equations suggested individuals would lose 15 pounds, they only lost 10. Yet, these equations are often spoken about as though they are a law as true as the law of gravity. What happened?

in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%. That’s a pretty significant drop. It’s much higher than would be expected based on having a slightly lower total body weight. In addition, the researchers pointed out that the thermic effect of food was lower. Protein, fat and carbohydrate each burn varying levels of calories in the process of digestion. More than 25% of the calories from protein get burned during breakdown and digestion. The values for carbohydrate and fat are significantly lower at less than 8% and 5% respectively. Reducing the total calorie level, while keeping protein low to moderate, results in a lower thermic effect. An easy way to avoid this drop is making protein a larger portion of the overall calorie intake, but few weight loss programs do this (even though it’s consistently shown to work in research).

When the body is able to tap into its fat stores, it has an almost unlimited supply of fuel. That’s why we talk so much about the idea of “making your body a better fat burner.”

New findings from a longitudinal study from Harvard that followed 120,877 healthy, non-obese, and well-educated adults for 12-20 years confirm is that it’s really not about the calories

^^

Oh look a study done on 120k people over 12 years....derp derp

Absolutely nothing in that in anyway negates CICO, so what is your point?

Mr_Knight

in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%.

Again - more evidence to back up CICO.

Mr_Knight

Not only does that study/snippet demonstrate the validity of CICO, it explains the mechanisms involved in it. Directly from the study:

"On average, after adjustment for changes in metabolic rate and body composition of weight lost, actual weight loss reached 90% of the predicted values."

Although weight loss was 33% lower than predicted at baseline from standard energy equivalents, the majority of this differential was explained by physiological variables. Although lower-than-expected weight loss is often attributed to incomplete adherence to prescribed interventions, the influence of baseline calculation errors and metabolic downregulation should not be discounted.

Capt_Apollo

Worst. Band. Ever.

DanIsACyclingFool

The Thyroids might be a good name for a band

The Overactive Thyroids.

lets do this. i used to get all five stars on Rock Band.

I am great at lip-synching. We're gonna get rockstar rich!

We'll all stay skinny cuz we just won't eat.


except for the selected few mentioned throughout this thread

3dogsrunning

Worst. Band. Ever.

Nope. I think he just quoted the worst band ever.

The Thyroids might be a good name for a band

The Overactive Thyroids.

lets do this. i used to get all five stars on Rock Band.

I am great at lip-synching. We're gonna get rockstar rich!

We'll all stay skinny cuz we just won't eat.


except for the selected few mentioned throughout this thread

nutmegoreo

So again. I know someone how I grew up with, also lived with in adulthood. Who has TALKED to me about her bmr and tdee who has TALKED to me about how much she eats, who I CAN SEE does almost nothing all day ( my step sister hates to clean and is the basic lazy house wife who plays apps until about 30 min to her husband comes home then she pretends shes been cleaning all day) lol sound familiar? She drinks at least 2000-2400 calories a day of beer that doesn't include all the crap she eats, she hates cooking and eats pizza 2-3 times a week. So YES, I know for 100% fact, no peanut gallery needed, that someone can be stick thin and eat whatever they want. Because I saw it first hand. Was I with her 24/7? Yes we lived together and neither of us worked, so YES I saw her daily in and out routine....Its not that hard to understand.

I may be missing a point here or something. Sounds like your step sister is an alcoholic. Since we are making unprovable leaps of faith cleverly disquised as observable 'facts', I am going to guess that there is some type of family dysfunction leading to attention seeking behaviours. I can't see any other logical purpose to this post other than that. OP, I hope you get some sleep and that tomorrow is a better day for you :-)

Sarauk2sf

in the first month, resting metabolic rate dropped an average of 11%.

Again - more evidence to back up CICO.

Reading comprehension is hard work

Yes, yes it is. But not by the person you quoted.

Sarauk2sf

OP seems awfully familiar...fo shosho